5 ms·
Like all symbols (e.g., statues, logos, sounds, buildings, etc.), there is no innate meaning for words. We are completely free to attach any arbitrary meaning t
by rangerpolitic 8y ago
Like all symbols (e.g., statues, logos, sounds, buildings, etc.), there is no innate meaning for words. We are completely free to attach any arbitrary meaning to a word and use it to convey that meaning. That doesn't mean it is without problems and that's the case with open source.
The existing community in which open source is used largely understands "open" to refer to freedom in the broadest means possible. That's the word's denotative sense. It also carries a strong connotative sense in which it is viewed as a positive for business and society.
What's happening is that you have a small group of people who desire to benefit from the connotative sense of the word while changing denotative sense. That creates problems when they're not clear that they don't mean open source in the same way that it's understand commonly amongst the technical community.
It's underhanded and dishonest.
If they want to create a quasi-open source license, that's fine. They simply should be very clear that it's not open source in the traditional/common sense.
- zzzcpan 8y agoCommon meaning behind open source is not actually OSI approved open source and never was by the way. OSI, for example, rejects public domain, while for pretty much everyone else public domain is open source. Broad freedom is even trickier to talk about. FSF, for example, built an entire ideology on the meaning of freedom.
- rangerpolitic 8y agoNot sure how any of this would contradict anything I've mentioned. Perhaps you don't mean it to do so? If you do, you'll have to explain more because I'm not really following.
- type0 8y agoPublic domain isn't open source, that concept doesn't exist in every country.
- sparkie 8y agoCopyleft licenses are not necessarily "free in the broadest sense possible." They place certain restrictions on what you must do with software you publish which contains code licensed under such licenses. There are several such copyleft licenses approved by the OSI which clearly do not fit your all-encompassing freedom definition. You also have approved license which place restrictions on use of branding and trademarks, and no effort is made by OSI to restrict licenses to those which also include a patent grant. So if someone creates another kind of copyleft license, which is not quite the same as say, the GPL, but has the same spirit of the GPL, including a patent grant, then are they not allowed to use the term "open source" or "free software" because a protectionist organization declares itself the arbiter?
- rangerpolitic 8y agoEven if I accept your reasoning here, it still doesn't change my main point. What we have is a group of people (e.g., Lerna, etc.) trying to ride on the coattails of success of "open source" without being forthcoming about what they're doing. We could be charitable and assume they're doing so out of ignorance, but I've seen way too many discussions on this issue where it's pointed out. I simply don't think they're ignorant. I've think they're being actively dishonest.
- ummonk 8y ago>The existing community in which open source is used largely understands "open" to refer to freedom in the broadest means possible. And yet nobody disputes that copyleft licenses, not just permissive licenses, are open source.